Archive for the ‘sanctions’ Category

Obama gave a press conference in which he yammered on and on about how it was either his deal, lock stock and barrel, or else it was total Armageddon nuclear holocaust global thermonuclear war. According to Obama, his deal is tantamount to the Word of the Living God and ANY violation of His Holy Word will send the entire world down to a fiery hell.

Me, I think of the words of a wise theologian who once quipped, “Now, you might have a better plan than God. But what you DON’T have is your own universe.”

The problem is that Obama as a malignant narcissist actually believes he DOES have his own universe. And it’s Obama’s universe and therefore Obama’s rules. And of course ONLY Obama’s rules need apply in Obama’s universe. Obama created his universe by the word of his omnipotent power and we are all merely his creatures. We were created to be implements of Obama’s will and to deviate from Obama’s will is the definition of “sin.”

“Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe,” Obama said to applause during his speech at American University.

“In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They are making a common cause with the Republican caucus,” Obama said.

Understand, it’s NOT the Ayatollah, it’s NOT the Iranian military, it’s NOT the Iranian mullahs who chant “death to America!” who are the enemies of all that is good. Because they are on the LORD God Obama’s side. No. It is the Republicans who are evil and should be destroyed by the fire of hell that comes from the mouth of Obama at every press conference.

This deal Obama and John Kerry made wouldn’t have got off the ground unless all these chanters of death to America hadn’t signed on. That is simply something called a “fact.”

Which is to say that all the actual rabid ENEMIES of the United States are ALL on OBAMA’S side. It is the Ayatollah, the rabid types, that are allowing this death-to-America deal with Obama to happen.

But Obama – the Creator of His Own Reality – is asserting that if you don’t agree with the Ayatollah and want this damn deal, well, you must be on the Ayatollah’s side. He is prevaricating – a fancy word for “lying right out of his skinny little weasel ass – in the most amazing and astounding way imaginable by implying that the Iranian people are the one’s who want this deal and the Ayatollah and the military and the parliament and the council are being forced to comply with it.

This couldn’t be more laughably untrue.

The man is simply demon-possessed, pure and simple. Obama lives in a world of lies. And I literally quote the words of Jesus to get right to the cockroach ESSENCE of Obama:

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” — John 8:44

When you go back and you see the massive ocean of outright LIES that Obama has been documented to have told over and over and over again on THE most important national issues, you can see with crystal clarity that Obama truly does belong to his father, the devil. It was Obama who claimed THIRTY-SEVEN TIMES that if you like your doctor you could keep your doctor and if you liked your health plan you could keep your health plan to deceive his way to his demonic ObamaCare takeover of the health care system that is one-sixth of the US economy. It was Obama who said THIRTY-TWO TIMES just since al Qaeda launched a terrorist attack that resulted in the murder of the first US ambassador since the failed Carter presidency – which attack Obama LIED about and said it was NOT the terrorist attack that it was – that Obama had somehow “decimated” al Qaeda. Obama said at least TWENTY-TWO TIMES that he did not have the authority – and that he would be an emperor, that he would be an anti-democratic tyrant – to do and then did anyway.

I simply state as a categorical, documented FACT that when Obama lies, he speaks his native language. Because he truly does belong to his father, the devil, and he truly wants to carry out his father’s desires.

One of the things is the participants of the Iran nuclear deal that Obama and Kerry and Democrats keep citing as “the whole world.” Who wrote this godforsaken deal? Well, Russia, China and Iran were every bit as much at the table as anyone. Pardon me for being skeptical.

Especially when we see what just happened. Espeically when we see what Obama’s “ally” in the Iran nuclear deal negotiations just did. Especially when we see that there are no actual sanctions whatsoever in actual place against Iran any longer thanks to Obama and his “deal”:

The shadowy Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani recently visited Moscow to meet with senior Russian leaders, according to two Western intelligence sources, despite a travel ban and U.N. Security Council resolutions barring him from leaving Iran.

On July 24, one week before Secretary of State John Kerry testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee and faced questions about the newly struck nuclear deal, Soleimani arrived in Moscow for meetings with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin. It was not immediately clear what the Iranian leader discussed, but the revelation comes as the United Nations and European Union arms embargo against Iran is slated to be lifted in five years as part of the comprehensive nuclear agreement announced July 14 from Vienna.

Soleimani was first designated a terrorist and sanctioned by the U.S. in 2005 for his role as a supporter of terrorism. In October 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department tied Soleimani to the failed Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States at a popular restaurant in Washington, D.C. The Quds Force is the special forces external wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, responsible for supporting terrorist proxies across the Middle East. It reports directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Soleimani is increasingly being recognized as a key player and point person as Iranian influence in the region grows, despite assurances from Kerry and others that Soleimani and the Quds Force will continue to face sanctions from the U.S. Treasury after U.N. sanctions are lifted against Soleimani as part of the nuclear deal.

Soleimani arrived in Moscow on Air Iran flight #5130, a commercial flight from Tehran, at 6:50 a.m. on July 24, a Friday. He left Moscow the following Sunday, July 26, at 10:25 p.m. on flight #5120, according to Western intelligence sources.

U.N. sanctions have not yet been lifted against Iran, and Soleimani, as head of the Iranian Quds Force is sanctioned as part of Security Council Resolution 1747. He is prohibited to travel, and any country that lets him transit or travel is defying the sanctions. (Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and would have been aware of this restriction when meeting with him.)

Soleimani has been photographed during recent battles against the Islamic State in Iraq leading troops and advising Iranian backed Shia militias, most notably in the battle for Tikrit in March.

Apart from his official meetings in Moscow, Soleimani reportedly had some “fun time” built into his schedule that involved Russian entertainment.

Outgoing U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno characterized the Iranian general in an exclusive exit interview with Fox News: “Qassem Soleimani is the one who has been exporting malign activities throughout the Middle East for some time now. He’s absolutely responsible for killing many Americans, in fact I would say the last two years I was there the majority of our casualties came from his surrogates, not Sunni or Al Qaeda.” […]

With friends like Russia, well, we might as well be friends with Iran, too.

New satellite images of an Iranian site thought to be used for work on a nuclear weapon show crates, trucks and construction that may indicate a renewed attempt to clean up the facility before an inspection by the U.N., a nonproliferation watchdog said Thursday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly raised concerns about previous possibly attempts to clean up the site, located in Parchin.

But the new report by the Institute for Science and International Security — a Washington-based think tank frequently consulted by the U.S. government — is significant because the IAEA will soon visit the site as part of the new nuclear deal, The Associated Press reported.

In an email to AP, the institute cited the images, saying they show “renewed activity” at the site that “could be related to refurbishment or cleanup prior to any IAEA inspection of the taking of environmental samples.”

The images show what appear to be a bulldozer or a steamroller, containers that have been repositioned and two new structures of “unknown purpose” that appeared between late May and early June, AP reported.

Iran’s foreign ministry has called the report “baseless (and) ridiculous” and attributed the construction to road repairs.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any work on nuclear arms in the area. However the IAEA, using U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, suspects that Iran may have have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms at that military facility south of Tehran, and other weapons-related work elsewhere.

You’ve got to ask yourself: if Iran hasn’t done anything wrong, just what the hell are they covering up???

This deal is beyond insane. It is evil. It is the betrayal of the United States of America – which Iran calls the Great Satan – and the betrayal of Israel, which Iran calls the Little Satan. And as a Republican candidate for president rightly said, Obama is forcing Israel to the very door of the ovens.

Obama is the living embodiment of “death to America.” Pure and simple.

Obama has successfully dismantled the UN Sanctions against Iran. He did so to force the hand of Congress to vote for his insanely wicked deal. There are now NO international sanctions and we will NEVER get them back unless Russia and China agree to them again – which they never will.

Iran WILL get the nuclear bomb. That is a categorical fact of this deal. And it will be entirely due to the most treasonous president and the most treasonous political party in American history: the Democrat Party and their dictator.

A country that is as oil-rich as Iran very clearly doesn’t need nuclear power for energy and anybody who thinks otherwise is clearly too foolish not to be demon-possessed. And in the same way, ballistic missiles without a nuclear program is rather like having Bluetooth without having a wireless device – because what the hell are you going to put on your ICBM that you spent so much time and money developing???

It’s as obvious as the signs in the heavens that Iran is working toward nuclear weapons; but these fascist fools aren’t looking at the sky, either, are they???

Here we are: presented by another blood moon sign from God as Obama and Kerry boast about their wonderful “deal” with Iran in spite of the fact that Iran has NEVER negotiated in good faith, in spite of the fact that the Ayatollah has again and again stated that Iran won’t budge on its nuclear plan – he said so repeatedly in 2013 (and see here), in 2014, and yes just recently this year of 2015 (and see here) – in addition to saying “Death to America!” even as the nuke talks were taking place. And we know that the top general of the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is the second most powerful entity in Iran after the Ayatollah said that “wiping Israel off the map is non-negotiable.”

Obama is perfectly happy to negotiate with Iran; it is only the Republicans, Israel, Netanyahu, and anybody who doesn’t have a demon screaming in their skulls – that Obama WON’T negotiate with.

I would rather be a roach than a Democrat, as one day you miserable fools will stand before God as flames of fiery wrath pour out of the wheels of His chariot throne and you stutter and stammer and claim that you didn’t know. And the fire will pour out blue with heat and God’s voice will roar that He put His sign in the very heavens above you and all you could do was stare at them with your cow eyes while you followed the wicked fool you chose as your leader like the stupidest and most depraved sheep who ever lived.

Update, July 15, 2015: For what it’s worth, the terrible deal that Israel is bitterly denouncing was just agreed to by Obama yesterday. The Senate will have sixty days to examine this deal, followed by a vote which will require a veto-proof majority to kill. Which puts us right smack in the middle of the next blood moon cycle, which will reach its zenith on September 28, 2015.

It’s really an amazing thing, to watch the way the media covers the news.

As for the Jonathan Gruber revelations, do you know what the press is doing in “covering” it? They’re saying, “Don’t consider what Gruber actually said about the fascist dishonesty behind the passage of ObamaCare that ought to get it thrown out by any legitimate Supreme Court; fixate on the bright shiny object about Gruber pointing out that the American people are stupid instead.

If you believe for half a second that a story about a senior Bush Iraq war architect called the American people stupid and claimed that the Bush administration had deliberately lied to garner support for their war would have been ignored, you are an even bigger fool than I think you are.

That’s exactly what happened in this case. And to the extent that the media has bothered to cover it at all, they have played a bait-and-switch game by hyping the “stupid” remark rather than the “we lied to get this turd that no one would have supported if they’d known what it was” remark.

But how the media covers the news is as pervasive as it is fascist. They keep playing the same dishonest tricks over and over and over again, either not bothering to cover Obama scandals AT ALL or only covering a trivial aspect of it and then dropping it. And meanwhile the wheels of America’s destruction under Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” grinds on and on.

Back in September of 2013, Obama entered into negotiations with Iran over something that no president – including Obama himself, according to the fool’s own deceitful rhetoric – had ever been willing to negotiate: Iran becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.

Conservatives like John Bolton immediately predicted what would happen: Iran would take advantage of the “negotiations” to buy time, endlessly extending deadlines. For instance, on October 1, 2013, Bolton anticipated precisely what is now taking place as a deal-desperate Obama AGAIN extends yet ANOTHER deadline:

Mr. Obama is inverting Dean Acheson’s maxim that Washington should only negotiate from strength. Even if there were some prospect that Iran could be talked out of its nuclear-weapons program, which there is not, the White House approach is the wrong way to start discussions. Given the president’s palpable unwillingness to use the military to enforce his Syria red line—let alone to answer the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack—and his paucity of domestic political support, Iran’s ayatollahs know that the president’s “all options on the table” incantation regarding their nuclear program carries no weight.

Iran undoubtedly wants relief from international sanctions, which have exacerbated decades of incompetent economic policy. But there is no evidence that the sanctions have impaired Iran’s nuclear or ballistic-missile programs. Instead, Tehran has increased its financial and military assistance to Assad and Hezbollah in Syria.

Mr. Rouhani’s strategy is clear: Lower the rhetorical temperature about the nuclear issue; make temporary, cosmetic concessions, such as allowing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency at already-declared nuclear sites; and gain Western acceptance of its “reactor-grade” uranium enrichment. Once that goal is attained, Iran’s path to nuclear weapons will be unobstructed and within Tehran’s discretion.

Iran will demand in return that international sanctions be eased, focusing first on obtaining small reductions to signal Western “good faith.” Mr. Obama and Europe already seem eager to comply. Western diplomats will assert defensively that these concessions are merely a matter of “sequencing,” and that they expect substantive Iranian concessions. They will wait a long time. Mr. Rouhani fully understands that once sanctions start rolling back, restoring them will be hard, perhaps impossible, absent a major provocation.

Mr. Rouhani will not supply one. Instead, he will continue making on-again, off-again gestures seducing the West into protracted negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs will proceed unimpeded in unknown, undisclosed locations. This was his 2003-05 playbook.

Extended negotiations will enable Mr. Obama to argue that a “diplomatic process” is under way to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat. No phrase is more beloved at the State Department. Mr. Obama will then use this process on Israel to prevent pre-emptive military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

In time, even Hamlet came to understand that “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Maybe one day President Obama will figure it out.

You read that entire article from more than a year ago and John Bolton predicted that Iran would paly Obama for the moral idiot fool that he is.

Everything Bolton said was right and continues to be even MORE right today.

Do you know WHY there has been such little angst? Because the jackass propagandists in the mainstream media haven’t EVER examined the predictions and the results of those predictions from conservative experts like John Bolton seriously. They have all along simply “reported” what the Obama administration said, then “reported” what the Obama administration said after the first time what the Obama administration said would happen didn’t happen, and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps working on their nuclear bomb and they keep working on their ballistic missile technology without which a nuclear bomb is nearly useless. And the day that Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear missile to Israel or worse yet, the United States, the world will inexorably move toward what the Bible calls “Armageddon.”

So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen? Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement. So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.

But here we are, extending the “negotiations” with Iran so they can keep working on their nuclear bomb and ballistic missile ambitions in peace and safety YET AGAIN.

Now, as morally insane as that “negotiation” with RABID EVIL is, understand that there is a group of people with whom Obama would burn down the world rather than negotiate: the majority of the American people whom he utterly despises.

After that election, Barack Obama acted exactly like Adolf Hitler would have acted after losing an election, after Joseph Stalin would have acted after losing an election, after Chairman Mao would have acted after losing an election. In short, he acted just like the socialist “Government is God” monster that he is.

What does the fascist propaganda press do? Ignore the 352 bills Democrats ignored, ignore the naked fascism of Harry Reid’s thug-style, and fixate on that ONE bill that Republicans didn’t move on in the House. Because in the most wicked and dishonest media since Goebbels, Democrats’ sins can be myriad

But the same fascist moral monster who won’t give the GOP one freaking nanosecond to formulate an immigration policy and pass a bill has now proven he will give rabid terrorist rogue regime Iran eternal extensions until they have successfully developed their nukes and their ballistic missiles to carry their nukes on.

“I can’t wait forever,” Obama says of illegally imposing his fascism on the backs of an American people who just overwhelmingly rejected him by issuing de facto amnesty for at least five million illegal immigrants. But of course he CAN wait forever for Iran to develop Armageddon for America and for Israel.

“I can’t wait forever.” So therefore I won’t wait AT ALL.

Barack Obama had TWO FULL YEARSof absolute control over all three branches of elected government and didn’t give a rat’s hairy rabies-filled ASS about immigration or immigrants. He could certainly wait THEN the same way he is now proving he can wait forever if need-be with nuclear-bomb-wanting Iran. But he can’t wait AT ALL for a Republican majority who would do the thing Obama is most terrified of: pass a law with the full support of the American people. So he sabotaged it in advance.

What Obama just did with immigration is like me negotiating over a sandwich with you – you know, after I’ve taken three giant bites out of the middle. When two parties negotiate, one side gives up something to get something else and the other side gives up something to get something else: Obama just obliterated that by taking what he wanted and telling the Republicans who now control two-thirds of elected government, “If you give up everything I’ll give you a meaningless promise to do part of what you want but then I’ll lie and ignore the law like I have always done before.”

If you’ve got an alternative theory, liberal Nazi, then just explain why Obama waited until AFTER an election (given the fact that he knew if he’d done this before the election the landslide against him would have even been MORE disastrous for his party) but refused to wait until after the new Congress that was just affirmed by the American people in a process called “democracy” was allowed to be seated. Explain why Obama did this after saying at least 22 times that doing what he did would be illegal, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, unfair to all the people who waited in line to legally immigrate and harmful to the American people as a flood of illegal immigration would occur as a result of the fascist act he took anyway.

There are now five million new “Americans” as millions more illegal immigrants on top of that number try to race in to our borders to exploit Obama’s lawless “law.” Which means there will be millions more in the USA to experience the hell of the Iranian nuke that Obama is also letting in detonate over our atmosphere.

It’s really quite staggering: the same Barack Obama is almost simultaneously Hitler on one issue with his fascist edict and Neville Chamberlain on another with his “peace in our time” extensions with soon-to-be nuclear Iran.

As morally evil as the Iranian regime is, I have to hand it to them: they have been playing a naive and appeasing Barack Obama the way a master violinist plays a Stradivarius. At every single turn, they have fooled him, blocked him, tricked him, or stalled him while they have just continued feverishly working on developing a full-blown nuclear capability.

And now here we are, on the verge of a truly dark and terrible development in world history:

WASHINGTON – Iran’s launch of a satellite into orbit last week will likely give U.S. and European leaders greater cause for concern that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to field long-range ballistic missiles while its nuclear program continues to progress, analysts here agreed.

The Iranian government-sponsored Islamic Republic News Agency reported Feb. 3 that Iran had launched a research satellite called Omid into orbit aboard a Safir-2 rocket. This is Iran’s first domestically produced satellite to reach orbit and the first to successfully launch on an Iranian-built launch vehicle, according to Press TV, an Iranian government-sponsored news outlet.

The U.S. government, while not explicitly confirming Iran has launched a satellite, has expressed concern that Iran’s development of a space launch vehicle establishes the technical basis to develop long-range ballistic missile systems.

“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said in a Feb. 3 statement. “Many of the technological building blocks involved in [space launch vehicles] are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles. … We will continue with our friends and allies in the region to address the threats posed by Iran, including those related to its missile and nuclear programs and its support of terrorism.”

Satellite watchers using orbital data provided from U.S. Strategic Command’s space surveillance network said the satellite is in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 242 kilometers to 382 kilometers in altitude, at an inclination of 55 degrees relative to the equator. Ted Molczan, an amateur satellite observer, said the satellite and part of the rocket that took it to space are both cataloged by Strategic Command and in similar orbits. The satellite appears to be tumbling, as its brightness in the sky changes rapidly, indicating the satellite’s likely lack of a stabilization or attitude control system. Both the satellite and rocket body are likely to begin to deorbit this summer, Molczan said.

“Dear people of Iran, your children have sent Iran’s first domestic satellite into orbit,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Press TV. “May this be a step toward justice and peace. Iran’s official presence in space has been added to the pages of history.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, which it says it has the right to develop for peaceful civil uses as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran argues it needs nuclear power and will not use the technology to make weapons. The United Nations Security Council, which includes permanent members China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, has urged Iran to suspend the program numerous times to no avail.

“This [Iranian satellite launch] I think highlights the dual-use issue again, just as the nuclear issue does, and that is technology can be used for peaceful purposes or for weapons that can threaten other countries,” said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank here. “In terms of any kind of direct missile threat [to the United States], it’s likely to be many years before they could have that capability. The people worrying more are others in the Middle East and Europe.”

Carpenter said perhaps even more unsettling than the Iranian satellite launch are recent media reports that North Korea is again preparing to launch its three-stage Taepodong-2 missile, which some believe will have the range to reach U.S. territory. North Korea tested one of these missiles in 2006, but it failed shortly after launch and broke apart in the air.

“North Korea poses a much more direct threat to the United States because if it is true North Korea is planning to test an advanced version of the Taepodong-2, that could put Alaska and the U.S. west coast in range,” Carpenter said.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the United States and Europe ought to be concerned about the progression of Iranian technology. He argued that Iran is more of a threat to the United States than North Korea, based on Tehran’s backing of insurgents in Iraq.

“That has been a capability we have seen Iran developing, but the fact that it now has actually happened is a jarring punctuation mark,”Donnelly said. “Given what we believe about their nuclear program, it seems pretty clear they’re very close to having a complete, deliverable weapon that would have the ability to reach out to Europe.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution here, said though the Iranian satellite launch may not show an increase in the physical range of Iranian weapon systems, it is perhaps a more impressive display of technological prowess than a missile test launch would have been.

“That suggests a certain amount of control and guidance mastery,” O’Hanlon said. “You’ve got to hit a fairly narrow band to put something in orbit, and the simple act of firing a missile doesn’t tell you anything about how close the missile landed to its target.

“It demonstrates more sophistication than I would have assumed, but I am not surprised they did this.”

Too few Americans (and for that matter Europeans) comprehend the magnitude of this development.

If Iran has nuclear weapons – and particularly if they have an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system – they will be immune to attack. Do you believe that Barack Obama would attack a nuclear-armed Iran? I submit that Obama won’t dare attack a NON-nuclear armed Iran. And no American president would attack a nation at the cost of one or more major U.S. cities.

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up oil. The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

What we are seeing with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the means to project them is akin to the armament of Nazi Germany during the 1930s. Many immediately recognized the threat the Nazis posed, but those in leadership were appeasing weaklings who were more interested in “transforming” their own societies than they were confronting genuine evil abroad. The result was the Holocaust and the meat-grinder of World War II.

Democrats who are demagogues at heart will assert that George Bush allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons as will. They are liars: George Bush TRIED to persuade the U.S. to strongly confront Iran, and Democrats in Congress shrilly attacked him for his prescient knowledge of the Iranian threat. Democrats claimed that Iran had suspended its nuclear program, and that the regime no longer posed a threat. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

Finally, the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program serves as a sober reinforcement of the rightness of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As with Iraq, we have in Iran a closed, totalitarian society that our intelligence cannot reliably penetrate. How will we know for sure when and if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do we simply choose to allow them to do so? Are we willing to suffer the consequences of the world’s largest terrorist state and supporter of terrorism to have nukes? Are we willing to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has publicly described his belief in an apocalyptic figure known as the “Twelfth Imam” who will come into the world via an act of global catastrophe – a nuclear trigger to place his finger upon? Are we willing to put nuclear weapons into the hands of someone who has repeatedly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map“?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can pretty much figure that World War III is coming soon. For one thing, the country is led by apocalyptic religious fanatics who will likely either use the bomb to attack Israel, or else will smuggle it into the hands of terrorists who will do the job for them. For another, a nuclear weapon in Shiite Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world, as Sunni states feverishly work to build their own bomb to balance the power.

Meanwhile, we find both Democratic presidential candidates vocalizing longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, and promising a swift pullout if elected. The question is this: how can a president who claimed that the United States was wrong in attacking Iraq over legitimate concerns that it possessed weapons of mass destruction proceed to threaten to attack Iran over legitimate concerns that IT possesses nuclear weapons? And conversely, as the United States attempts to prevent Sunni Arab nations from developing their own nuclear weapons programs to balance Shiite Iran, how will a president – who refused to honor the American commitment to stand by Iraq – proceed to succeed in convincing Sunni countries that we will stand by them against any threat posed by Iran?

If we say that the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, then we tacitly affirm that it will be wrong to attack Iran even as it feverishly works on creating enough centrifuges to have the type of refined uranium it needs for one and only one purpose.

There was a process that the United Nations ostensibly provided by which two nations in material disagreement could come to a fair resolution. But what should have been an honest process was interfered with and corrupted by powerful member nations and by the United Nations itself. If we are going to blame anyone for the invasion, then let us blame countries like France and Russia, as well as the corrupt and grossly incompetent and negligent United Nations. They made it impossible for any just solution to prevail. In Saddam Hussein’s own words and thoughts, their protection and interference gave him the idea that he could defy the United States and keep the inspectors at bay without any meaningful consequence.

Those same countries are now protecting Iran the SAME exact way. They are opposing sanctions and resolutions against Iran the SAME WAY they did against Iraq. Since both countries are permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council, they can absolutely shield Iran from ANY resolution as they choose. And Barack Obama would have no choice but to go it alone if he wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program the same way Bush had to choose to go it alone.

But Obama WON’T DO THAT. Which means Iran will have its nuclear capability during his watch.

“reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.”

Kenneth Pollack, writing in the liberal journal The Atlantic, said the following:

This issue has some personal relevance for me. I began my career as a Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA, where I saw an earlier generation of technical analysts mistakenly conclude that Saddam Hussein was much further away from having a nuclear weapon than the post-Gulf War inspections revealed. I later moved on to the National Security Council, where I served two tours, in 1995-1996 and 1999-2001. During the latter stint the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon.

He cites a number of reasons for the U.S. view (which, again, had been held by the Clinton administration as well) and then adds:

Western intelligence agencies understandably took these actions to mean that nothing in Saddam’s weaponry plans had changed.

And to that we can also add E) There is actually good reason to believe that Bush – and the Democrats quoted in the three sites above – were COMPLETELY CORRECT in believing that Saddam had WMD.

Part of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons program was transferred from Iraq to neighbouring Syria, and their status has yet to be resolved, Dr David Kay, the just-resigned head of the Iraq Survey Group, was quoted Sunday as telling a British newspaper.

In what it called an exclusive interview, the Sunday Telegraph said it was told by Dr Kay that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before the start of the Iraq war in March last year.

But there was another reason that George Bush decided to make Iraq a central front in the war on terror: he knew he could win there, and he knew that his victory would have a huge impact on the region over time.

Think of it: an Arab and Islamic democracy in the heart of the totalitarian Arab world. Think of other Islamic states, whether Iran or Saudi Arabia, having to explain to its people why their countries shouldn’t be more democratic, just like Iraq. George Bush believed that a democratic Iraq could potentially turn around a poisonous Islamist dynamic that was growing more and more poisonous all the time.

The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.

What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a “war of necessity” while the war in Iraq was a “war of choice.” (Oh, and as long as you’re back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay “school safety” czar.)

The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 — or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over “regime change” in Iran in 1979. Both countries — and others — gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.

As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.

By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.

It’s always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator — Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) — or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders — Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.

Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq’s countryside was susceptible to America’s overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq’s oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it’s not just oil: They’re basically sitting on top of most of the world’s proven reserves of cab drivers.)

By contrast, there aren’t a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only “carrot” we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.

But Democrats couldn’t care less about military strategy — at least any “strategy” that doesn’t involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.

Liberals sneered at Bush’s description of Iraq as the “central front of the war on terror” and a step toward the “democratization of the Middle East” — as Mark Danner did in the Sept. 11, 2005, New York Times — because sneering was all they could do. By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism.

Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq … to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.

Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. (American liberals, naturally, gave the credit to Obama, who they also believe is responsible for the sun rising every morning.)

Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq — and then they stopped because of Obama’s indifference. Sadly for them, America’s foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.

During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a “war of choice” and Afghanistan a “war of necessity” for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals.

But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too. As Frank Rich points out: “Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention.”

Now they notice.

Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare — something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.

Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.

The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals’ and certainly not Bush’s. It was Obama’s meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a “war of necessity” during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq — a good battleground for the U.S. — to Afghanistan — a lousy battlefront for the U.S.

And it was Obama’s idea to treat war as if it’s an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm’s way.

A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an “unwinnable war.” I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would.

Ann Coulter does an excellent job depicting why Iraq was a place where we could win, and Afghanistan was a place where we could fall into an abyss. Iraq – with its flat terrain and its conventional military dynamic, was a place where American technological might could completely dominate.

In making Iraq the central front, Bush chose a war that he knew America could win.

In demanding that Afghanistan be the central front, Democrats – and in particular Barack Obama – may well have chosen a war that we can’t win.

And Democrats now have a well-known history of losing wars since 1950.

Hence her title, Natural born losers.

And allow me to take that concept of the people now leading our country being “natural born losers,” and turn it to the even greater threat of Iran.

I’m going to close by pointing out that George Bush faced a similar dilemma in Iraq that Barack Obama will face in Iran: the utter uselessness and in fact counter-productiveness of the United Nations.

Russia, China, and France all had permanent member veto power, and all three had no intention of allowing any kind of meaningful sanction, resolution, or threat of military force to be passed by the United Nations. While France has since joined the United States’ side, China and Russia will continue to be a thorn in the side of any effort to thwart Iran’s ultimate nuclear weapons ambitions (which merely continues a pattern that had ben going on for years).

If Barack Obama still believes that he will be able to woo these countries – or for that matter Western Europe – to his side, he is a naive fool. Just as he was always a naive fool for trusting in such patent nonsense.

And, so, just as with Bush and Iraq, Barack Obama will be largely forced to go it alone if he wants to prevent the terribly dangerous development of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Nearly a year-and-a-half ago, I pointed out that a Democrat president who demonized the war in Iraq would be unable to justify a war to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. And absolutely nothing has since happened to change that conclusion one iota.